Victim’s Familiarity with Accused Not a Ground to Hold Her Responsible: Delhi High Court Deletes Adverse Remarks Against Complainant While Upholding Bail in Sexual Assault Case
Safiya Malik
The High Court of Delhi, Single Bench of Justice Amit Mahajan held that a woman’s familiarity or cordial relations with the accused cannot be a ground to hold her responsible for an alleged sexual assault. The Court was hearing a plea by a complainant, a journalist pursuing a PhD at Jawaharlal Nehru University, challenging adverse remarks made against her by the trial court while granting bail to the accused in a rape case. While upholding the grant of bail, the High Court struck down those observations, stressing that prior acquaintance with the accused does not diminish the gravity of the allegations.
The case concerns allegations of sexual assault made by a journalist who was also pursuing a PhD at Jawaharlal Nehru University against a fellow PhD student. According to the complainant, she met the accused in June 2024, after which they stayed in contact. It was alleged that on October 12, 2024, they went out for dinner and later returned to the accused’s hostel, where she stayed overnight. The next morning, the complainant alleged that the accused touched her inappropriately and sexually assaulted her.
She stated that after the incident she confronted the accused and distanced herself, but he continued to contact her. On December 24, 2024, she met him again and alleged that he committed a second sexual assault at his hostel. Based on her complaint, the police registered a case under Section 64(1) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023, and arrested the accused on December 27, 2024.
A trial court later granted bail to the accused, noting that he was 25 years old, had no prior criminal record, and was no longer required for investigation. The complainant challenged the trial court’s order, objecting to remarks it made suggesting her prior familiarity with the accused indicated tacit consent and trivialized her allegations.
Justice Amit Mahajan, upon reviewing the record, observed that the trial court’s remarks were “not warranted” and “in the strict sense ought not to have been a ground for admitting Respondent No. 2 on bail.” The Court stated that “the observations are in the nature of imputing doubts on the character of the victim. The probabilities of the allegations cannot be commented in this manner as done by the learned ASJ while considering the application for bail.”
The Court further recorded that “the allegations could not have been trivialised for the reason that the victim after the first alleged incident again met the accused or went to the Respondent No. 2’s room alone.” Justice Mahajan categorically stated that “no person has right to sexually assault the victim for the reason that she voluntarily came to his room.” The Court found that such reasoning, suggesting consent from circumstances like prior acquaintance or continued interaction, was legally impermissible.
The order noted: “At that stage, the learned Court fell in error in giving findings in regard to complaint of the victim, essentially for the reason of the victim’s acquittance with the accused.” The High Court held that the trauma of the complainant “ought not to have been trivialised by such observations.” The judgment stressed that familiarity or cordial relations between parties do not absolve or mitigate allegations of sexual assault: “Only because the victim had known the accused or that she was in cordial relations with him, will not make her responsible for the sexual assault.”
Citing the Supreme Court’s decision in XYZ v. State of Madhya Pradesh and Anr. (2021) 16 SCC 179, Justice Mahajan reiterated that courts must refrain from commenting on the character of the prosecutrix while granting relief in sexual assault cases. Quoting directly from the Apex Court, the order recorded: “The use of reasoning/language which diminishes the offence and tends to trivialize the survivor is especially to be avoided under all circumstances… These instances are only illustrations of an attitude which should never enter judicial verdicts or orders… they cannot be reasons for granting bail or other such relief.”
The Court stated: “In light of the aforesaid discussion, the impugned order is modified to the extent that the observation made in paras 7 and 8 are set aside. The petitioner has not prayed that the order granting bail be set aside, but is challenging the impugned order to the extent that the observations may be deleted.”
“Therefore, in light of the observations made by the Hon’ble Apex Court in XYZ v. State of Madhya Pradesh and Anr. (supra) the learned ASJ ought to have refrained from making the said observations against the petitioner.”
“The present petition is disposed of with the aforesaid observations. Pending Application(s), if any, also stand disposed of.”
Advocates Representing the Parties:
For the Petitioner: Ms. Warisha Farasat, Ms. Suvarna Swain, and Ms. Kaustubh Chaturvedi, Advocates.
For the Respondents: Mr. Sunil Kumar Gautam, APP for the State; SI Divya Gehlot, PS V.K. North; Ms. Geeta Verma and Mr. Pawan Kumar, Advocates for Respondent No. 2.
Case Title: X v. State Govt NCT of Delhi and Another
Case Number: CRL.M.C. 378/2025
Bench: Justice Amit Mahajan
